Seems odd the team is being so public about this workout, feels like a smokescreen.

Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to completely take the final step. That was done and the final step was taken. The OLine still needs work.

I consider you all smarter than myself about such things...but do we really want a QB in this draft? I would be against using anymore than one of our 7ths on a (developmental-type ) QB in 13. His deal would be up just one year after Wilson's. You guys know this already.

I was thinking about just stayin with a stop gap (Young, Webb etc.) until perhaps next year or even the year after, then using a higher pick to get a QB we can develop to keep as Wilson's potential replacement (god forbid) or to ultimately trade (if we can retain Wilson and Wilson stays Wilson). This approach wouldn't make more sense?

As a UA alum, and admitted homer, I would suggest we draft him, and draft him early. Go watch his USC tape. Go watch his Stanford tape. Go watch the Nevada tape. Hell, go watch him destroy the Huskies.

This is so oversimplified that I'm surprised nobody has mocked you for saying it yet; that said I am in agreement with you. I'd rather "reach" for John Simon in round 2 than get a "steal" like Jonathan Hankins in the same draft slot. Seattle used this same philosophy with the Irvin/Wagner/Wilson picks last year. Point being, I think most people (especially in the media) get carried away with a players' perceived value where in reality many of the best players are under the radar, and our FO does an outstanding job of identifying those players.

Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like Matt Scott is going to be one of those undervalued players to GMs, if he ever was one.

I think that whole team was snakebit in that Oregon game. I'd compare Matt Scott vs. Oregon to Russell Wilson vs. @Rams or @49ers. Wilson played well those games, but was snakebit by fluke INTs against the rams and snakebit by drops vs. the 49ers. A lot of people came down hard on Wilson during those games, I thought he played well and was just extremely unlucky. I thought he'd be just fine.

That whole Oregon game (from Arizona's POV) felt a lot like Seattle vs. Atlanta in the first half. They were moving the football and looked like the better team, but they seemed to be cursed and somehow fell behind big. In the case of Arizona, that snowballed into frustration and an ugly shutout. In the case of Seattle, it resulted in a massive 2nd half correction. Matt Scott is no Russell Wilson, but what Wilson did overcoming adversity in that Atlanta game was extremely rare, the kind of thing you usually only see from the Peyton Mannings and Tom Bradys of the world.

If I had to make a case against Matt Scott, I'd probably showcase his final game against Nevada. It was almost the exact opposite of the Oregon game- Scott played poorly for the most part, but his team still scored 49 points. He had a couple of ugly picks and probably a dozen terrible throws, but he came through when it mattered. I washed my hands of the Oregon game. It was on the road against a vastly superior team and everything about the first half especially screamed "fluke". I think the Nevada game worried me a lot more, but it also highlights that a struggling Matt Scott can still be a dangerous QB.

Matt Scott's best game (on youtube) was Stanford. He was outstanding in that game.

I've never once watched him and thought, "thats an NFL qb.". I wouldnt take him before the 5th round and i'd rather have Tebow, Vince Young or Thigpen as our backup. Hell, I think Josh Portis will be better, and i'm considered a Josh Portis "hater" by some on this board.

60% completion percentage in that type of offense they ran at Arizona screams less then 50% NFL completion percentage to me. And Scott had the benefit of having the leading rusher in the NCAA on his team. His completion percentage (which I think is one of the most important stats, because it is what keeps the chains moving) was worse then Keith Price who had a bad year, and Zach Maynard who is quite possibly the worst pac 12 QB i've ever seen. Denard Robinson, in the same offense the year before, completed 63%, and he's changing positions because he was such a bad QB.

He's not going to make it in the NFL, in my opinion. Darron Thomas 2.0.

JSeahawks wrote:I've never once watched him and thought, "thats an NFL qb.".

He had some great games, particularly Stanford or his first ever start vs. Washington in 2011 (?).

His accuracy is inconsistent, but it's the mental inconsistency that is probably my biggest concern. Darron Thomas is not a terrible comparison, but that being said Matt Scott has the widest scope of NFL projections out of this entire draft class. At worst, I think he's another Seneca Wallace (Wallace wasn't even considered a QB when he was drafted). Yet he has elite level quickness and terrific arm talent, and he has his moments where he looks like Aaron Rodgers or RG3. I think he's a lot more likely to hit the Seneca Wallace side of the spectrum than the Rodgers side, but I also think our coaching staff and offense could give him the best chance of anybody to maximize his chances.

I would be thrilled if we got him in the 4th or 5th, but I wouldn't take him in the late 2nd (which is where I think he'll go).

Sometimes before players become great, they show flashes of it. Scott shows flashes of elite ability and seems to have good intangibles. Nobody is saying that he's an elite QB right now. He's very much a high risk swing for the fences type, not unlike Colin Kaepernick or Tarvaris Jackson when they entered the NFL.